Election 2016

Ted Cruz Just Announced That He's Running for President

Cruz hopes to be the top second choice for libertarians.

|

Texas Senator Ted Cruz just made it official: He's running for president.

He made the announcement in a tweet, accompanied by a video, shortly after midnight, eastern time.

credit: Gage Skidmore / Foter / CC BY-SA

Cruz believes he has a path to the GOP presidential nomination by winning the Tea Party vote, and doing well enough with both social conservatives and libertarians to knock out potential rivals, according to a Houston Chronicle report published over the weekend:

Cruz's senior advisers, however, see a path to victory that all but ignores [the GOP establishment]. To them, the Republican primaries are a series of single-elimination brackets where the four GOP leaders who best represent the party's libertarian, establishment, social conservative and tea party wings will survive as the field winnows. Cruz will vie for the support of the tea party electorate, his advisers say, but will fare well enough with social conservative and libertarian voters to assemble a powerful coalition.

"Those guys who run for the middle have name ID, but they don't truly have one bracket they crush," said one adviser.

Forty percent of the electorate may vote for the establishment candidate, the advisers predict, but Cruz will "crush" with the 25 percent of voters who come from the tea party bracket. He will then peel some second-choice support from the 10 percent who consider themselves libertarians and from the rest of the voters who identify as social conservatives.

Advisers to Cruz, the son of a pastor, believe he can make a special argument to these religious voters like the thousands of students he is expected to address at a basketball arena Monday at Liberty, a school founded by leader of the religious right Jerry Falwell. About half of the voters in the Iowa caucus this year are expected to be evangelical Christians.

Cruz is the first Republican to make the announcement. Expect more entrants soon. 

Advertisement

NEXT: Liberal Policies vs. Affordable Housing

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Ooh, does this mean we get to play the “who is the Tea Party” with Stormy over and over for the next year?

    1. That never gets old.

    2. I’m not sure I understand who they are anymore.

      I know there was a libertarian contingent in the Tea Party that opposed bailouts and ObamaCare.

      But the bigger share were as likely to oppose bailouts and spending because they wanted to make the world safe for Social Security and Medicare.

      There was a nice chunk of social conservatives in the Tea Party, too.

      In some ways, counting on the socons, the libertarians, and the Tea Party is probably double or triple counting those voters.

      I don’t think Cruz has the charisma to make it on his own, and I don’t see him being a prime choice for Vice President, either. The crossover candidate to watch is Rand Paul.

      Rand Paul isn’t exactly charismatic, either, but when Mitch “The Establishment” McConnell endorses Rand Paul, he may emerge as the only guy with credibility both inside and outside of the establishment.

      How you like them apples, Mr. Cruz?

      1. I’m not sure I understand who they are anymore.

        I’m skeptical that the ‘Tea Party’ ever really had a clear idea who it was in the 1st place. It’s difficult to sustain group coherence when one part is saying “let’s reduce entitlement spending” while another part is saying “hands off my Medicare”.

        1. I thought the following was a decent summary of the TEA (Taxed Enough Already) Party movement from its origins through its many changes: http://www.conservapedia.com/Tea_Party_Movement

          Currently, about all these groups seem to have in common is a name, as you imply.

          1. I remember a couple of amusing exit polls from the ’12 election where apparently 11-12% of Tea Party supporters voted for Obama.

            1. What’s amusing about that? What’d you expect, 0? You never get 0 for anything with a decent sample size.

          2. We need a Teat Party. That would get my vote.

          3. Funny thing about the entry was its failure to note mailing tea bags to members of Congress as a semi-organized gesture that’d been in use for many years, noting only “tea baggers” as a pejorative!

      2. The tea Part was/is *at its core* a libertarian-conservative alliance against large government – specifically in the form of high taxes and regulation.

        But like all large-scale emergent movements, there’s a lot of ‘fringe’ (as in fringe to the movement’s core planks, not necessarily crazy people (though it has those too)) from the libertarian ‘smash the state’ types to conservative ‘stop supporting the homosexual agenda’ types trying to hook their bandwagons up to this and gain control.

        Its essentially the same thing that happens with *any* of the leftist movements – no matter how reasonable (even if mistaken) a core group may be there’s the fringe element right there with their bullhorns.

        Look at the anti-war movement during W Bush’s terms – right along with those people were the radical ‘smash the patriarchy’ feminists, the ‘eat the rich’ commie unionists, and ‘save the whales, eat a human’ animal rights/eco-terrorist types trying to trick people who support anti-war policies into believing that all the resr was a necessary part of that.

        1. One thing the OWS folks did better than the Tea Party was at least remember who and what they hated, even if they had no idea what they were for, either.

          Not that loose collections of people need to all agree.

          1. The Tea Party folks never lost site of what they hated – big government – in it’s various manifestations.

            The difference is that they, unlike those other groups, was actively villified by the media and political establishment.

            1. and unlike OWS, they are employed.

          2. OWS had the right idea — cronyism sucks — but the wrong solution — they wanted government to save them from corporations. They were willfully blind to the other half of cronyism, as if somehow a government paycheck turned corporate hacks into government saviours. They had the intellect of 3 year olds.

            1. Honestly I liked the movement at it’s conception. It pissed off my former Socon, and prog friends. Once the whole 99% thing started I knew it was doomed.

      3. Once Rick Santorum claimed to be a member, the party was officially over.

        1. Perhaps. But the beginning of the end was when Palin did.

          1. Right. Both of you.

        2. My branch of the Tea Party was just as much about Republican over-reach and unconstitutional lawless behavior as it was anything the Dems. did. In fact, Republicans may be more dangerous as it takes at least 6 yrs for the rank and file to wake up that they have been had.

          Any Tea Party that ID’s with Newt, the Huckster or Santorum more than Ron Paul is not one I want to be associated with. Or why I stopped ID-ing myself as Tea Party.

      4. “I’m not sure I understand who they are anymore”

        They’re a liberal boogey man and generally reference anyone who associated with the GOP but has fallen from the try faith.

        On the minds of the Democrats the only thing worse than a Republican is a Republican supporter who actually wants less government.

    3. I make up to $90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $40h to $86h? Someone was good to me by sharing this link with me, so now i am hoping i could help someone else out there by sharing this link… Try it, you won’t regret it!……
      http://www.work-cash.com

  2. I haven’t looked at him closely, but my current impression is “Couldn’t help but be several times better than Hillary.”

    1. The guys who put my new siding on my house are several times better than Hillary.

      1. No kidding. Talk about a low bar to clear. It’s like the matchbooks in the upper class twit of the year show.

        1. Then let’s hope the bar can be cleared. All the confident talk about the Democratic “electoral college advantage” makes me nervous. The country can probably recover from Obama, but from an Obama-Hillary 1-2 punch, I’m not so sure.

          1. All the confident talk about the Democratic electoral college advantage is bunk. As long as the repubs don’t nominate Jeb or some complete foaming at the mouth retard like Santorum, demographics alone will be pulling large portions of the Industrial Midwest into the red camp, which will puncture a big hole in the “Big Blue Wall”…

            1. You’re giving the Republicans an awful lot of credit. I thought the Democrats were the stupidest party, strategically-speaking, but the Reps have been giving them a run for their money over the past few years.

          2. “The country can probably recover from Obama, but from an Obama-Hillary 1-2 punch, I’m not so sure.”

            When Obama won in ’08 I told everybody that the game was over, and that our team lost. (since the alternative was McCain it was probably over, regardless).

            Do yourself a favor and look at 2016 as nothing more than entertainment — another mile marker on our road of decline. It’s easier that way.

            1. TARP was the point of no return.

            2. I continue to be flabbergasted as to why so many libertarians continue to identify with the Republicans. I assume that as a libertarian, one is interested in reducing government spending? The last time the Republicans did that was in 1954. It’s time to give up the illusion that Republicans are for smaller government. The only difference between the two parties is where the emphasis will be for increased spending: social programs or military adventures. In fact, one could make the arguments that the Democrats are better, because the social programs at least do not destroy lives and property as the main objective, unlike military spending. Just look at Iraq and tell me it is not a clear example of digging a hole and then filling it back in.

              1. I continue to be flabbergasted as to why so many libertarians continue to identify with the Republicans.

                To be fair, there is an active Libertarian segment within the GOP? so self-identified politically-inclined Libertarians can identify with that, if they want.

                Besides, where else are they going to go?

              2. Except the big government nanny state bullshit does destroy lives and property. Don’t believe me? Get on the wrong side of those regs. You just might get Eric Garner’d.

              3. …because the social programs at least do not destroy lives and property as the main objective…

                Citation please.

              4. @ Ed U. Both parties subscribe to the “Broken Window Fallacy”. The Democrats destroy just as many lives, and properties. It’s their economic policies that do it, rather than their warmongering.

              5. Ed,

                Why would any of us identify with Democrats more than Republicans? Do the Dems have anybody even remotely close to a Paul or Amash? Not that these guys are necessarily Libertarians, but they sure come a lot closer than anyone I can think of from the left side of the aisle.

                Don’t get us (well me) wrong though, Boehner and Pelosi are equally useless in my eyes.

              6. “Democrats are better, because the social programs at least do not destroy lives and property as the main objective”

                Main objective? Maybe not. But a clear consequence is not an unintended consequence. You can’t subsidize poverty and expect people not to remain in poverty.

          3. The USA recovered from the Bush Financial Collapse and Iraq $2 trillion Debacle.

            Oh, but those two don’t count because a Team Red POTUS was in place.

            1. but those two don’t count because a Team Red POTUS was in place.

              You really do lack any semblance of the ability to read and comprehend, don’t you? Only someone who lacks the intellectual honesty to actually read a comment forum to understand the opinions of others could make such presumptuous statements as you.

            2. We’ve recovered? How about all those people who have dropped off the unemployment lists because they’ve stopped looking?

              We’ve recovered about as well as, say, 1937. Yet another fiscal downturn turned into a long drawn out “recovery” by government meddling.

            3. The USA recovered from the Bush Financial Collapse and Iraq $2 trillion Debacle.

              What’s your next guess? We’re still in a depression.

              -jcr

            4. You mean that debacle that Obama keeps inching us towards for another go-round? The one he wanted to continue indefinitely? That debacle?

              Fuck you are stupid, even for a demfag.

          4. As opposed to the Lincoln-Obama nut punch?

        2. “It’s like the matchbooks in the upper class twit of the year show.”

          Nice.

          Who do you think will figuratively shoot themselves into first place, CP?

          1. Oh, if only that were the final challenge.

    2. *Richard Nixon reincarnate* would be several times better than Hillary.

      1. Nixon’s head in a jar and the headless body of Agnew in 2016!

        1. I’m meeting you half way, you stupid hippies!

      2. Ha ha ha ha!!!! Clever Futurama reference!!

      3. Ha ha ha ha!!!! Clever Futurama reference!!

  3. With an epic video that screams ‘Murica, the electricity of the new campaign season gets me all excited.

    Perhaps it’s the masochist in me, but I truly enjoy watching the debates and seeing the candidates take swings at each other. Cannot wait!

    1. Swing at each other during the debates? It seems more like a lemon party to me.

  4. Pretty much indistinguishable from Rand Paul on anything that counts. “I do think Paul is more “electable”.

    1. Pretty much indistinguishable from Rand Paul on anything that counts. “I do think Paul is more “electable”.

      My guess is that Cruz getting in will be a bad thing for Paul. Cruz will cater more to the SoCons, thus splitting the vote enough in such a way that Jeb Bush gets the nomination, etc.

      1. And that is exactly why Cruz is running. I would not be surprised if there is some back room deal with Jeb to drop out after a certain state, after all the votes have been siphoned off from Rand Paul. Then he gets to be secretary of some bloated department, probably the same department which he will call unconstitutional and unnecessary during his campaign.

        1. Eh, I highly doubt Cruz and Bush are intentionally colluding to split the vote in the latter’s favor.

    2. Wow, uh what exactly counts to you?

      1. Where (other than maybe Cuba) do Cruz and Paul have any substantial disagreement? Did Rand come out for continuing ethanol subsidies?

        1. I haven’t paid close enough attention to know if there are major policy differences between them, but I certainly get the impression that there is a huge difference in style. Cruz seems to be trying to ride the wave of anti-establishment sentiment among Republicans, but as a fellow reactionary, not as a leader.

          Paul, for all his faults, seems to be genuinely trying to strike out on a new path.

        2. Cruz is more of a hawk than Rand.

          1. In tone and tough talk, yes. There isn’t much difference in policy other than on Cuba.

    3. I far prefer Cruz on immigration. And that counts more to me than any other single issue.

  5. To bad he’s not a natural born Citizen.

    1. Most legal scholars disagree, but of course I’ll defer to a piece of plastic stashed in an appliance for the final word on the issue.

      1. Wong Kim Ark

        “A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case [p703] of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens,…”

          1. “The Supreme Court, however, has never ruled on the meaning of the natural-born citizenship requirement. In the absence of a definitive Supreme Court ruling?or a constitutional amendment?the parameters of the clause remain uncertain.”

    2. Watching a new birther movement on the left, who was completely ignorant of the irony, would be delicious.

  6. I think one problem is that to anyone old enough to remember Green Acres, he really sounds (and looks) like Mr. Haney

    1. Heh. Yes he does.

    2. And looks like a muppet:

      http://www.dailypaul.com/30118…..z-a-muppet

    3. That will work out well, then…. because Hillary looks just like Arnold Ziffel

    4. God, I long for the days when we could elect a guy with wooden teeth, a couple guy who looked like they styled their hair via electroshock, and Lincoln, one of the most homely men who ever lived. I couldn’t care less what Cruz looks like.

      1. Cruz is tall enough to win but I’m concerned about that hairline.

  7. He’s right on certain things (being pro-life, lower taxes), but he’s an absolute hawk when it comes to foreign policy. Paul comes the closest to being both pro-life and war-weary, but he really needs to stop catering to the neoconservatives who want to wage war with everyone. I mean, he can’t win the noninterventionist vote if he’s understanding of neocons, and he can’t win the neocon vote if he’s not totally for war. It’s a lose-lose scenario.

    Where does he come down on NSA reform? He seems as if he could go both ways.

    1. What’s your definition of absolute hawk?

    2. The problem is that one aspect of the infantilization of America is a near universal belief in the infallibility of the US military. So while large numbers of people are tired of the Iraq war, ISIS scares them and they want their government god-parent to protect them from those scary crazy people.

    3. ProLifeLibertarian|3.23.15 @ 6:37AM|#
      “He’s right on certain things (being pro-life, lower taxes)”
      So a 500 hitter?

      1. that is precislely what the author implied….funny to watch a swinging strike out for sarcasm

  8. He needs some Cruz control.

    He’s Cruz-ing for a bruising.

    He’ll be Cruz-ing for the White House.

    Winning Iowa will be Cruz-ial to his campaign.

    I’m done. I’m done.

  9. “Cruz hopes to be the top second choice for libertarians.”

    Please call me when he wants to end the Bush-Obama pointless wars.

  10. Since Cruz was born in Canada I fully expect the Birther nuts to come out in full force.

    Not.

    1. Yeah, I mean, it’s not like any ratbagging teafuckers filed a lawsuit to block McCain’s candidacyy because he was born in the Panama Canal Zone and then congress passed a special resolution recognizing his eligibility.

    2. His father’s Cuban. He’s a Communist mole.

    3. Your logic is flawed on so many levels, I’m not even sure where to begin, other than to clarify that I am not defending the Obama birthers by pointing out the obvious differences in cases here to you.

      1) Is anybody disputing that Cruz was born in Canada and not the US? Certainly not Cruz.

      2) The defense of Cruz’s ability to run will be much the same as those used for Obama: even though Obama was born in the US, if he weren’t, his mother was, making him a natural born citizen.

      3) Although the Obama birthers have been the most recent examples, the left has a long history of birther claims. I wouldn’t be surprised if there are some out against Cruz, but again, see point 1.

      1. Perhaps anti-Cruz rightwingers will make it an issue, but I think “full force” is the operative phrase. Or are we just going to sit here and pretend that Obama birtherism doesn’t continue to this day, with ever more inventiveness.

        1. Oh, it definitely exists, but I would think people would have enough ammunition to go after Obama based on his policies, rather than into which artificial borders he was in when he was born. But I would hardly think that the number of them is enough to move the radar.

          1. Republican base voters are batshit insane. That person screeching at Santorum may or may not be the norm, but the party wouldn’t be remotely viable without people like that.

            1. I’m failing to see how this varies much from the communists and nanny staters of the left wing party. Any group large enough is going to have it’s share of crazies.

              It seems to me you like your crazies telling everyone else what to do instead of your crazies telling everyone what God told them to do.

              1. chevy706. This is Tony. He is a little fascist, that is too scared to put on the jackboots himself. He would rather have someone else do it for him.

              2. What communists? You point me out one single communist in the entire Democratic party, elected to office or otherwise. Calling people communists for, say, supporting a run-of-the-mill social welfare state such as what we and every other decent country already has, makes you the crazy one.

                1. Bernie Sanders. Tony Dipshit.

                    1. Um, nope.

                      Great answer.

                2. Brack Obama, dipshit.

      2. Wong Kim Ark

        “A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case [p703] of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens,…”

    4. Yeah, there’s so many birthers on this site. You really caught us there.

      Fuck off, toolbag.

  11. While Cruz is not my preferred choice (few candidates ever could be), he would be hard-pressed to be worse than the presumed DNC nominee, and the GOP could certainly do worse. (I say that given that I am at the point where I would simply accept a competent administrator being president.)

    1. They’ll probably manage to do worse. Almost certainly.

  12. Any GOP candidate who embraces the Wars on Women, Gays and Drugs is destined to lose. I’m not 100% sure where Rand Paul stands on these issues (McConnell and the establishment may have already corrupted him) but Paul may be the only viable choice at this point.

    Cruz has already blown it with his embracing of these social issues. Libertarians and the 20% undecided in the middle will stay away from him. He has already lost it from day one, ha!

    1. So he would lose in the general by 22 points because he supports the same policies every Republican has supported since Nixon? That’s some astute analysis.

      1. Kevin — Where you’re wrong is Libertarians weren’t as influential as they have been in the last half decade.

        Not only is my analysis “astute” but it is accurate!

        What about you? What analysis do you have? Just as I thought, ha.

    2. EndTheGOP|3.23.15 @ 9:57AM|#
      ‘some noise’

      End the donkeys.

      1. Sevo — I see you’re still attempting to formulate some kind of opinion on anything! Good luck with that. Be sure to get back to us when you think of something. Maybe you can ask someone for something half-way intelligent to present to the readers. There you go. Go get em boy.

    3. “War on Women”.

      OK

      1. Immaculate — Allow me to educate you. When you tell women what they can or cannot have growing in their bodies — they tend to think of that as you waging a war against them.

        I know if you tried to tell me, a man, what I can or cannot grow in my body, you better be prepared to fight me to the death, because I’m sure in hell going to try and kill you! Sounds like war to me.

        OK?

        1. Jackass dumb shit. Fuck off, jerkface.

          1. Harold — I just love it when my detractors have to go straight to the name-calling and profanity because you lack the intellect to refute any part of my argument.

            You make me laugh and feel soooooo good!

            1. @EndTheGOP. You show up here with a handle like that, and expect people to take you seriously. You are the Worst Troll Evar.

              1. JP — You sound very confused. My handle is very pro-Libertarian. This is a Libertarian site. Why on earth would me wanting to end the GOP have anything to do with being anti-Libertarian? Get back on your meds!

                You don’t have to take me seriously, Just try to refute my arguments. You can’t!

                I was a Libertarian before there was a Libertarian Party. All of you are the trolls, ha!

                1. “I was a Libertarian before there was a Libertarian Party. ”

                  =)

                  Okay Mr. Ethan Allen.

                  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gG3AKoL0vEs

                  1. Sorry Dude. You do not have an argument to begin with. =)

                    1. JP — You say, “And that’s JPYRATE TO YOU.”

                      When you can defend your non-arguments to me, then you MIGHT earn my respect and I will at that time refer to you by whichever name you are using that hour (The spelling of your handle changes from hour to hour I noticed,ha!)

                      Back on your meds JP!

                    2. JP — Sorry yourself Dude. When you claim that my handle somehow disqualifies me from being on this site, I made an argument you have yet to refute. Let me give you a little hint –you can’t!

                  2. JP — The Libertarian Party was founded on December 11th, 1971. I was fortunate enough to have an uncle who educated me on the principals of Libertarianism while I was a freshman in high school. (I graduated in 1970)

                    I have been a card carrying member of the Libertarian Party since 1984

                    I think the above entitles me to participate on this site without the accusation of being called a troll.

                    Were you attempting to educate me with that youtube video? My uncle explained those principals to me 40+ years ago.

                    1. “I think the above entitles me”

                      You are Entitled to nothing that you have not earned.

                    2. Wealth can be inherited. Respect must be earned.

                    3. If your Uncle explained this to you 40+ tears ago then supporting a political party the ignores it proves your ignorance on economic policy.

                    4. Also “Principals”

                    5. JP — You said, “Also “Principals”

                      What the hell are mumbling to your self now?

                    6. JP — You say, “If your Uncle explained this to you 40+ tears ago then supporting a political party the ignores it proves your ignorance on economic policy.”

                      I’ll tell you what. Learn how to write a sentence that is capable of being understood, and I’ll show you exactly how ignorant you are!

                    7. JP — So you are saying I am not entitled to participate on this site?

                      Back on your meds sir!

                    8. You can participate, this site however owes you nothing. You are not entitled to it.

                    9. Nice try Hihn. =)

                    10. JP — Who the hell is Hihn?

                      You really should have attended grade school a lot more than the 10% you may have attended.

                      Either get back on your meds or get off the thread.

                    11. More ad hom. Yawn.

                    12. And yet more ad hom’s.

    4. Ahh yes the “War on Women”. Who’s winning that bloody conflict anyways?

      1. Free S — The GOP lost that war 40+ years ago. They’re still fighting it because no one told them it’s over.

      2. The statist’s are, on bith sides of the island. =)

  13. I’ve always thought the “tea party” was just an end run around from an actual second party being formed after the Bush sell-off.
    When I have read of, or spoken to self identifying tea party folks, they were just big government “conservatives” wanting more military and more police forces with fewer restrictions.

    It seemed to me that the DemocratsandRepublicans have had such great success pretending to be two parties that they could well pretend to be three parties just as easily.

    1. I haven’t talked to a single member who didn’t favor cuts to entitlements, gun rights and property rights. There is a difference between the folks who re-post Tea Party memes and people who attended the events from the beginning. It’s fair enough to say they aren’t for cutting the military.

  14. In what universe does Ted Cruz qualify as appealing to a libertarian?

    1. In what universe does Ted Cruz qualify as appealing to a libertarian?

      I haven’t paid enough attn the last few yrs to know much about his actual positions, but the fact that conservatards appear to be apeshit excited over him makes me apprehensive towards him.

    2. Absolutely. He is just awful.

    3. He said something a couple weeks ago that sort of supports states experimenting with marijuana legalization (which sort of contradicted what he said a year ago on the topic but whatever).

    4. I’m a smidge confused myself. Apparently the cover of Reason Magazine thinks so, so that’s good enough.

      Frankly, Paul’s the obvious libertarian choice, assuming of course that you won’t vote for an actual Libertarian candidate. I heard Scott Walker on C-SPAN the other day and, apart from sounding a little hawkish for my taste he certainly talks the talk, and given his record seems to walk the walk as well. He’s personally pro-life but seems unwilling to bring that perspective to legislation, and while I’m not wild about his stance against gay marriage off the bat he seems at least to have made his peace with it. The Reps could do a lot worse than to put Walker on the ticket.

      1. They could and probably will.

      2. Although I applaud Walker’s battles with the unions, he’s also a big-time drug warrior and has pushed for drug testing citizens as a condition of receiving benefits. Look, I understand how infuriating it is to submit to a drug test to get a job while those who receive free tax dollars don’t. But we need to REDUCE (or, ideally, eliminate) all testing, not expand it even further. For this reason alone I can’t give him my vote.

        1. But we need to REDUCE (or, ideally, eliminate) all testing, not expand it even further.

          And how do you propose to do that without infringing upon employers’ freedom of association, Wedge?

          1. Just legalize drugs. Sure, some employers will still choose to test, but the vast majority won’t.

    5. I think you’ve misinterpreted the article. It’s not whether or not he appeals to libertarians, but rather, of the people presumed to be running, would he be the least despised of those not named Paul? And honestly, I think it would come down to either him or Walker as least despised.

  15. Cruz is an opportunistic reactionary war hawk. He’s anti government now only because the executive is being run by a Democrat. The second an R is President, I’ll bet my day old popcorn that he’ll become a cheerleader of government.

  16. Cruz is an opportunistic reactionary war hawk. He’s anti government now only because the executive is being run by a Democrat. The second an R is President, I’ll bet my day old popcorn that he’ll become a cheerleader of government.

  17. Glad to see the PK (preacher’s kid) vote will be split between him and Walker. VERY GLAD we have hardly heard from the Huckster or Santorum among those who play “the God Card.”

    For those who want to play that game, my brand of Christianity thinks it is more about SHOW ME than TELL ME. And PLEASE do not wear it on your sleeve or beat us over the head with a Bible.
    That is not only crass, I find it rather un-Christian. And remember, POTUS is a SECULAR position. I was taught that God cares more about saving souls and the hereafter than for earthly kingdoms.

  18. In all my years observing American politics there have been few occasions more beyond my ability to comprehend than Limbaugh sheep hearts going atwitter for this sleazeball demagogue.

    1. “In all my years observing American politics”

      HaHaHaHa.

      How old are you kid. 20? 22? 19?

      What a lifetime of experience you have to draw on to make such wise and experienced observations.

    2. there have been few occasions more beyond my ability to comprehend

      There have been few occasions where I have been this unsure where to begin…

  19. I know the libertarian gripes about Rand Paul. But as a Libertarian we now have 2 viable Libertarian leaning candidates in running for president. I vote for Gary Johnson last time just hoping he would get a decent showing to make people pay attention. Now instead of worrying about some imperfections of these candidates we finally have candidates with whom we can have substantial agreement. This is proof the libertarian message is spreading

    1. Or it’s proof that the way to get votes from libertarians is to a.) mouth the words “I am a libertarian” while you enact right-wing public policy.

      1. As opposed to american socialist, who mouths words about morality and then offers up apologia for oppressive murderous regimes.

      2. and that’s borrowing from the drip, drip, drip socialist strategy of the last century in a half…why do you know consider such a strategy a pejorative?

    2. tlapp:

      cruz is “libertarian leaning”?

      not on your life. he’s a social reactionary who is dying to wield the whip hand to enforce HIS values.

      if that seem libertarian to you, i’m really not sure what to tell you.

      claiming you want “small government” is all well and good, but if you then start wanting to take away rights, interfere with marriage, and wage war all over the world, well, you seem to lose your credibility on it…

  20. The great french socialist, Leon Blum, talked about highlighting contradictions so if my choice is between h. Clinton and Cruz I’ll probably go with Cruz. If the goal is to destroy the rotten edifice that underlies this country of militarism and imperialism, isn’t the smart move to make it as clear as possible why this country doesn’t work for the average citizen?

    1. Of course, if Stalin’s corpse was reanimated and ran you couldn’t vote for him fast enough.

  21. this just in

    http://dailycaller.com/2015/03…..orfeiture/

    hope she signs it.

    1. I hope she signs it, and I hope other states follow, and follow quickly.

    2. I read through the legislation sort of quickly and I didn’t see anything restricting state agencies from partnering up with the feds.

      What the legislation proposes is not that radical — I think about a dozen states have similar standards for forfeiture — but law enforcement in those states just take advantage of federal forfeiture.

      1. True but its better than nothing

  22. cruz has no shot in the general election.

    no one this overtly religious does.

    the millenials are a big block and they are not gonna vote for an anti abortion anti gay marriage bible basher.

    hell, neither would i if i could possibly help it. if this presidential race turns out to be evangelist preacher vs socialist sopcial engineer, the US political process is well and truly broken.

    the US is utterly ready for a socially liberal (in terms of rights) and fiscally conservative leader.

    the problem is that neither of our parties is.

    they are both hijacked by their extreme wings and so no one the country wants can get out of a primary.

  23. Mr. Cruz, for all his evidently sterling reputation as a patriotic conservative, is NOT constitutionally eligible. Unless precedent has been set by the election of the TOTALLY unqualified and in-eligible fraudulent documented Obama, Cruz should NOT run for president. Ted Cruz IS constitutionally eligible to run for many OTHER offices.

  24. Why would any libertarian vote for him? He’s a hard-core neocon on foreign policy, hard-core theocrat on social issues, shows little restraint or thoughtfulness in his political actions, and has an authoritarian streak a mile wide. I see very little that is libertarian in his outlook, history, or positions.

  25. Why would any libertarian vote for him? He’s a hard-core neocon on foreign policy, hard-core theocrat on social issues, shows little restraint or thoughtfulness in his political actions, and has an authoritarian streak a mile wide. I see very little that is libertarian in his outlook, history, or positions.

    1. Sorry, must have accidentally double-clicked the respond button.

  26. I’m making $4 an hour working from home. I was shocked when my neighbour told me she was averaging $95 but I see how it works now.I feel so much freedom now that I’m my own boss.go to this site home tab for more detai….

    ………………………. http://www.work-cash.com

    1. $4 an hour? No wonder you feel so much freedom!

  27. Cruz is an official candidate now:

    Donald Trump Goes Birther on Canadian-Born Ted Cruz
    http://www.bloomberg.com/polit…..n-ted-cruz

    “The reality show host is questioning whether the Cruz’s foreign born status precludes him from running for president.”

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.